Universal Access To All Knowledge
Home Donate | Store | Blog | FAQ | Jobs | Volunteer Positions | Contact | Bios | Forums | Projects | Terms, Privacy, & Copyright
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload

Reply to this post | Go Back
View Post [edit]

Poster: Scotty74 Date: Aug 24, 2006 7:32pm
Forum: etree Subject: vbr mpu vs. 64 mpu

hey guys, I am only familar with shn and flac. what's the deal with these two file type and which one is better? any info would be great..thanks

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: nagdot Date: Aug 25, 2006 6:59am
Forum: etree Subject: Re: vbr mpu vs. 64 mpu

anything over 125k is cd quality personally i dont mind lo-fi since i usually just listen to them in the car im not big on trading and i cant afford 10 grand worth of equipment to find a significant difference in lo and hi -fi plus my pc is 7 yrs old altho my boston acoustics are sweet maybe its the many yrs of playin drums in a metal band huh wat was the ? lol

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: gmcgill Date: Aug 24, 2006 8:33pm
Forum: etree Subject: Re: vbr mpu vs. 64 mpu

not sure what "mpu" is (maybe the streaming of the underlying mp3 files), but the VBR MP3 files are much higher quality mp3 files than the 64k. For example, the average bit rate of most of the VBR files I download are closer to 200 (as compared to 64). These files play on IPODs or any standard portable music player and of course are significantly smaller than the flac or shn files. But they are not "lossless" files.

This post was modified by gmcgill on 2006-08-25 03:33:58

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Scotty74 Date: Aug 24, 2006 9:21pm
Forum: etree Subject: Re: vbr mpu vs. 64 mpu

perfect..thanks so much!!!

Terms of Use (31 Dec 2014)